From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 22:02:23 GMT
Hi Nathan,
> The human mind ...
I'll read "brain." You might consider a software/hardware sort of
distinction.
>...did not develop as a organ to solve philosophical problems.
Agree.
> Rather, it evolved for a very different purpose. In that it is like the heart,
> lungs, or kidneys; that is, the brain has a specific job to fill namely to
> simply enhance the reproductive success of the body within which it resides.
I agree. The brain is a biological organ that evolved to fulfill biological
needs.
> This is the biological purpose of every mind, human as well as animal, and
> moreover, it is its only purpose.
(I'm still reading "brain" rather than "mind") I don't know how you
conclude that "it is its only purpose." Modern homo sapiens brains now also
serve social and intellectual purposes.
Why not take a broader view of evolution? A brief history of the world....
Life evolved out of an inorganic physical setting which seeks stability and
balance and went off to serve its own purpose of preserving itself in what
can be seen as a sort of defiance of physical laws as, for example, animals
move about and even fly rather than simply succumbing to the pull of
gravity. Humans eventually created societies which helped to preserve life
and fulfill biological needs, but these societies have also found their own
purposes and continue to seek them in defiance of the law of the jungle.
Out of established societies intellect evolved which at first had the
purpose of preserving society and making life physically easier, but
intellect too has found its own purposes in creating philosophy and
literature and art.
Each stage of evolution evolved to serve the purposes of lower stages but
has gone on to serve itself. Each level is a moral code: the laws of
physics, the law of the jungle, the morality of society, and the rules of
rational thought. The value that holds an idea together is qualitatively
different than the value that holds society together which is different from
the value that preserves life which is different from the value that holds
physical materials together.
Now I'm getting into the heart of Lila which I'd rather not do. It would be
better for you to read it than to for me to try to summarize. But I want
to say that reducing intellectual and social experiences to biological ones
as you are trying to do is as absurd as trying to explain biological
experiences with the laws of physics. If society and intellect like
consciousness are merely emergent properties (like wetness as you say),
isn't life also merely an emergent property that then doesn't really exist?
Are biologists also just deluded into thinking that there is something to
study?
Regards,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 22:02:49 GMT